This statement has me utterly befuddled. I'd love to ask Jenn to elaborate on what the hell she means by that.Jennifer L. wrote: u know how old movie go with acting. i'll have to watch it again with English subs.
Not to mention (but I will anyway) he got Jodorowsky's name spelling wrong as well. 2 for 2.domino harvey wrote:As always, spelling Godard's name wrong always makes me chuckle.
That woman was not african
How about they made a movie of an european queen and put and asian or an "true" african person.That is why i rated this movie a 1.And i dont care what the hell anyone says. White people always trying to make stuff as them when they should stick with their own culture
Only a series of emoticons can capture my reaction.Saturnome wrote:Maybe this got around here since it's 2 years old, from the IMDB boards, on The African QueenThat woman was not african
How about they made a movie of an european queen and put and asian or an "true" african person.That is why i rated this movie a 1.And i dont care what the hell anyone says. White people always trying to make stuff as them when they should stick with their own culture
More poison from Loach the leech
Talking of hypocrisy, has there been any more nauseating lately than that of the bigoted Marxist film director Ken Loach on winning the Palme d'Or at Cannes, for a poisonous film about the war between the IRA and the inevitably wicked British in the early 1920s? In true Marxist style, there was our Ken on the red carpet on the Riviera, looking très soigné in his black tie, and cosying up to Emmanuelle Béart - well, it's an ugly job, but somebody's got to do it, and nothing's too good for the workers. This, though, is not the worst of this parasite's hypocrisies.
He hates this country, yet leeches off it, using public funds to make his repulsive films. And no, I haven't seen it, any more than I need to read Mein Kampf to know what a louse Hitler was.
I thought I'd bump this thread and give my opinion on a few Criterions I've seen. Please note that I haven't seen the actual Criterion DVDs of the following films (With the exception of The Night Porter), I've only seen the films on television stations like TCM, IFC, and Ovation.
The Honeymoon Killers – I thought the story was kind of lame (I know it was based on true events) and the editing seemed real jumpy. I also thought it had a very poor soundtrack.
Traffic – I wasn’t very impressed with this. I didn’t like any of the characters and there wasn’t anything in the movie that I hadn’t seen before in other drug movies.
Solaris – I thought it was just boring.
Samurai Rebellion – I thought it was pretty boring. I made it up to the 40-minuet mark, then fast-forwarded to the end.
Alexander Nevsky – I don’t think it was a bad movie, but I couldn’t get into it. Maybe someday I’ll give it a rewatch.
Pandora’s Box – I didn’t think it was very interesting and at times the soundtrack didn’t really seem to go along with what was happening on screen.
The Rules of the Game – It was all right, but I didn’t find the story very interesting.
Man Bites Dog – I wasn’t really impressed with it. I don’t have anything against black and white film, but the use of it here just looked real odd.
Throne of Blood – I just couldn’t get into it. I even rewatched it thinking my opinion might change, but I still didn’t like it.
Knife in the Water – Again, another movie I didn’t find the plot (as well as the characters) to be interesting and kind of boring. I didn’t like the hitchhiker character and thought he was a prick. Throughout the movie, I kept scratching my head as to why Andrzej brought him along. Although on the plus side, Andrzej’s wife was pretty cute.
Umberto D. – It was good, but my god was it depressing. I don’t think I would watch it again if I bought it.
Mafioso – It wasn’t bad, but I don’t think I would ever watch it again.
The Night Porter - I wasn’t disappointed with the movie itself (although it was kind of odd) but I was disappointed by the lack of extras and the poor quality of the print.
The Telegraph usually goes hilariously over the top when it comes to films about the Irish-British conflict that might possibly be perceived as being sympathetic to the Irish. They were so outraged by Michael Collins (or, I suspect, the idea of Michael Collins rather than the actual film) that they ran two leading articles calling for it to be banned.tavernier wrote:Ah, dragging in Mein Fuhrer -- the ultimate insult!
a whole new kind of comedy/action/crime drama, 20 September 2004
Author: tsavage from Birmingham, AL
My son called me from Korea (Army Medic) to tell me that I had to see this movie. He brought it home with him on leave and we watched it together and he was absolutely right. It was "off the chain" as he says. It was so different from the standard fare that only substitutes different faces into the same tired story lines. We love it and I am now buying my own copy. I recommend it to any one that I know is a discriminating movie lover. I can't wait for the sequel. By the way , I'm a 43 year old mom of three so it's not just for 20 something males. Willem Dafoe was over the top but absolutely perfect for this movie. My husband hates movies and any TV that doesn't have a ball and a score, but he actually loved this movie too. It kept him on the edge of his seat and he actually laughed out loud several times.
A compendium of answers to that questionoldsheperd wrote:This is somewhat an indirect reference to this thread, but does anyone else find it hard to answer someone when they ask you waht kind of movies you like. I usually ask them what they mean and they come back with comedies, scifi or foreign films. I didn't know foreign films were a genre.
That annoys the hell out of me. Also my DVD cataloging software of choice, DVDpedia, has a category for 'Art House & International'. Gee, that's only about 97% of my collection.oldsheperd wrote:This is somewhat an indirect reference to this thread, but does anyone else find it hard to answer someone when they ask you waht kind of movies you like. I usually ask them what they mean and they come back with comedies, scifi or foreign films. I didn't know foreign films were a genre.
As a native Briton, does this mean that I should label all non-British films "foreign"?oldsheperd wrote:I didn't know foreign films were a genre.
I can't stop chuckling at that. It's going to be my new catchphrase. I will say it every time I watch a Miriam Hopkins film and just laugh and laugh.Cobalt60 wrote:This statement has me utterly befuddled. I'd love to ask Jenn to elaborate on what the hell she means by that.Jennifer L. wrote: u know how old movie go with acting.
Its bad enough that she uses "u" in place of "you" but also that she makes the statement in such a confident, eye-rolling way, suggesting that we already know what she means because its just common knowledge.Matt wrote:I can't stop chuckling at that. It's going to be my new catchphrase. I will say it every time I watch a Miriam Hopkins film and just laugh and laugh.Cobalt60 wrote:This statement has me utterly befuddled. I'd love to ask Jenn to elaborate on what the hell she means by that.Jennifer L. wrote: u know how old movie go with acting.
Count Blood wrote:Watch out! Nofsreatu is a really old movie!
Some body told me that I should see this movie because its supposed to br the first Dracula movie and I like vampire movies alot. But this movie is'nt even about Dracula as far as I can tell! For one thing his name is'nt even Dracula its Count Nofsreatu! And he does'nt even wear a cape! And this movie is way too old IMHO. Its like the acters don't even know how to act! Its not evey scarey! Do yourself a faver and watch one of the Newer Dracula movies like Lost Boys or Blade 2. Those movies have lots of aciton and blood that Nofsreatu does'nt have (and their in color, I might add). If you wan't to go to sleep watch this movie! Ill give it 2 stars because theres a vampire in it. Bwa ha ha!
Yeah, I really don't think anyone's ever going to top this one. I mean, it's brilliant for so many reasons, but best of all the reviewer clearly has no idea of the original novel. Hence he doesn't recognize that Nosferatu is a direct adaptation while Lost Boys, etc. are not. And that's only the tip of the iceberg. I don't think any of us will ever be able to wrap our heads around the depths of this reviewer's total incomprehension.tavernier wrote:That's the greatest review ever written - do us all a 'faver' and shut down this thread for that cannot be surpassed.
